The obviousness inquiry requires a determination that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references in an obviousness determination is a question of fact. See Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In other words, “one must have a motivation to combine accompanied by a reasonable expectation of achieving what is claimed in the patent-at-issue.” Id.In the instant case, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has provided sufficient articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to explain how and/or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed invention by the cited art.